In the retail security industry, theft deterrent devices that are attached to the article to be protected have become an important tool to combat retail theft. Theft deterrent devices of this nature are intended to be attached to articles that are easily removed from stores. The devices are attached in such a manner that they are readily visible to the potential thief and that an unauthorized attempt to remove the device will cause the article to be permanently damaged. The theory of deterrence being that the potential thief, recognizing that the article will be useless due to the permanent staining, will have no incentive to steal articles protected by these devices.
Emphasis should be placed on the functional reliability of these devices for a number of reasons. Most obviously, in order to deter, the potential thief must believe that the device will function as intended if any unauthorized removal is attempted. Also, due to the fact that the device will render the article useless, it is necessary that the device not discharge the permanent staining substance unless unauthorized removal is attempted. Simplicity of design is desired in order to enhance functional reliability. The less complicated the device, the more likely it will function as desired.
Other factors to be considered in the design of these devices are the cost to manufacture, the weight of the device, and ease of determination of whether the device has been triggered. The device may be used in very high numbers in large stores. Therefore the cost to manufacture becomes an important consideration. In order to keep costs low, the design of the device should be kept simple.
The device may be used on articles constructed of materials that may easily tear or rip. The device should be as light as possible, while maintaining reliability, in order not to damage the article to be protected.
Previous attempts have been made to provide anti theft ink! tags such as are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. Re. 35,361, 5,045,172 and 4,944,075 to Hogan et al. (the '361, '172 and '075 patents); U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,438,738, 5,392,620, 5,275,122 and 5,372,020 to Stolz et al. (the '738, '620, '122 and '020 patents); U.S. Pat. No. 5,347,262 to Thurmond et al. (the '262 patent); U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,031,287 and 5,022,244 to Charlot et al. (the '287 and '244 patents); U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,047 to Lynch et al. (the '047 patent), all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The '738 patent describes an anti-theft ink tag. The tag is composed of a base element, and a locking element. The locking element is attached to the base element by a connecting unit. The connecting unit is composed of an elongated pin. The base element contains a marking substance container (ink ampule) held in place by a tongue. An attempt to improperly remove the tag causes the head of the elongated pin to push the tongue into the ink ampules and fracture them.
The '361 and '172 patents describe anti-theft ink tags. The tag is composed of a base component, and a locking component. The locking component is attached to the base component by a pin. The connecting pin has a pin head and a breaker element. The base component contains glass vials (ink ampules). An attempt to improperly remove the tag causes the pin head to push the breaker element into the ink ampules and fracture them.
The '075 patent describes an anti-theft ink tag. The tag is composed of a base component and a locking component. The locking component is attached to the base component by a pin. The connecting pin has a pin head and a breaking balls. The base component contains glass vials (ink ampules). An attempt to improperly remove the tag causes the pin head to push the breaking balls into the ink ampules and fracture them.
The '122 patent describes an anti-theft ink tag. The tag is composed of a base element, and a locking element. The locking element is attached to the base element by a pin. The head of the connecting pin has an abutment part. The base element contains ink ampules. An attempt to improperly remove the tag causes the pin head and abutment part to push into the ink ampules and fracture them.
The above anti-theft tags use some type of dye as the method for permanently staining the article to be protected. This method for rendering the article useless may not be completely effective as in some cases the dye may be removed from the article.
None of the devices described above describe an anti theft tag which effectively deters the theft of articles by permanently staining them yet is reliable, lightweight, simple and inexpensive to manufacture, effectively renders the article permanently useless if unauthorized removal is attempted, and provides its user an easy manner to determine if the device has been triggered.
Thus, there is a need in the art for a lightweight effective anti theft tag.
There is an additional need in the art for such a device to effectively render an article permanently useless if unauthorized removal is attempted.
There is an additional need in the art for such a device to be inexpensive and easy to manufacture.
There is additional need in the art for such a device to provide its user an easy manner to determine if the device has been triggered.